In Montana ist die Hölle los

Director Sidney Salkow made quite a few westerns over the course of his career, and the one thing they have in common is that none of them are particularly good. If you want to see why, then watch this picture. Salkow has no sense of pacing whatsoever (a trait even more evident in his "Sitting Bull" from 1954, which has to be among the most disjointed pictures ever made). Stuff happens, then nothing happens for a while, then stuff happens again, then nothing happens for a while again, and so on, and so on, and so on. That describes this picture pretty much to a T, and what's even worse is that, unlike many of Salkow's other westerns, this one actually has a cast of experienced western actors in roles both large and small: James Best, Frank Ferguson, Rex Holman, Rick Vallin, Frank Gerstle and Mort Mills, among others, have done good work in other westerns, and Audie Murphy is earnest as always, but there's not much they can do with this. They try hard, but Salkow's limp direction and the drivel they're forced to recite kill whatever small chances there may have been of making something out of nothing. Even though the plot is somewhat tired, good--or even halfway competent--writing could have made this picture at least watchable. The writing here is laughable hack work, just cliché piled on top of cliché, overheated dramatics, eye-rolling villainy--it seems more like a William S. Hart western from 1915 than an Audie Murphy western from 1964. The last part of the picture picks up a bit--"picks up" being a relative term, considering that virtually nothing has happened up to that point--when the outlaw gang attacks the town, but even that isn't in the least exciting. Salkow's tenuous skills as a filmmaker completely evaporate when the "action" starts (again, check out his 1954 "Sitting Bull") and this picture is no exception--a few desultory gunshots and a bad guy falls off his horse, another gunshot or two and a townsman falls down (it's hard to tell if it's because he was "shot" or if he just dropped from exhaustion--the outlaws and the townsmen in this picture have to be among the OLDEST people to engage in a gun battle in the history of westerns) and the same thing is pretty much repeated for the next eight or ten minutes. There's no sense of excitement, danger, or anything other than boredom. In the end, of course, everything works out exactly as you knew it would, but it's not really worth sitting through this dull, lumbering mess to have your suspicions confirmed.

This western from the Audie Murphy's second part of career is really lame, not precisely boring, but so tedious, predictable, despite a Ted De Corsia's presence, in a role that reminded me a bit some Dan Duryea's characters. The villain who seemed to be at first sight the hero's good pal. But it's watchable for Audie Murphy's fans. Forget NO NAME ON THE BULLET, in terms of Murph's characters, here, you feel that any Rory Calhoun, Dale Robertson or George Montgomery would have also done the job the same. The early sixties are recognizable if you watch closely enough the production design and story telling. This seems to evoke the AC Lyles' productions, involving old timers only. But strangely never Audie Murphy by the way. Very Strange that I just realize it now, when writing this review, that Audie Murphy never played in an AC Lyle's productions. With directors such as Lesley Selander, RG Springsteen, William Claxton....

The Quick Gun is directed by Sidney Salkow and written by Robert E. Kent. It stars Audie Murphy, Merry Anders, James Best, Ted de Corsia, Walter Sande and Rex Holman. A Techniscope/Technicolor production with cinematography by Lester Shorr and music by Richard La Shelle.

1964 saw three Audie Murphy Westerns released, Bullet for a Badman was rather good, Apache Rifles was just above average and The Quick Gun was quite frankly poor. Which is a shame since the premise and double pronged dose of villainy showed good promise on the page. Plot essentially sees Murphy as Clint Cooper, a gunman returning to the town of Shelby two years after he had left because of killing two men. Although he was forced into the fight, many of the town denizens consider him an evil force, a problem since he is trying to get the whole town to understand that a gang of outlaws are on their way to pillage all and sundry. With the father of the two men killed by Cooper after his blood, the gang on their way and very much having Cooper in their sights since they know him well, Cooper has got it all to do to win the heart of the gal he loves and settle down in peace on his deceased father's ranch.

Of course it's a narrative tailor made for a Murphy character, defend the town against all hostilities whilst proving himself as a just man. But it never amounts to much more than a few half hearted up-tempo scenes. There are a number of villains for Cooper to deal with, but they are weakly performed by the actors, marking them out as unconvincing, with Walter Sande as Tom Morrison laughable as we are expected to believe his old and bulky frame can give a lithe Murphy a good fist fight. This is one of the many false things that dominate the picture, the fights are ultra slow, the stunt doubles all too obvious and the town of Shelby itself is one of the most unconvincing I have seen in a B Western. The interiors are all pristine and pretty, often looking like how someone would decorate a Wild West themed restaurant, badly artificial.

There's a decent sequence involving flames and as ever, Murphy is watchable and likable even in the most tawdry of Oaters, but this really smacks of unprofessionalism by those around him. Making it hard to recommend to anyone but the staunchest of Audie's fans. 5/10

'The Quick Gun' never exerts itself, but it's still a western that (only just) held my interest from start-to-finish.

The premise is watchable enough, which is fortunate as the acting, dialogue and fight scenes aren't great. All of the acting is on the wooden side, with the exception of Ted de Corsia who is pretty good as Spangler. The cast are all likeable, though don't quite give top performances in my opinion.

Dialogue-wise it's boring, there's quite a few moments with blocks of speaking. The combat isn't pleasing on the eye either, given its slow nature. The music and camera work is OK, I guess.

If you want to sit back and chill with a western that doesn't take much effort, then this is one for you. It's fine to watch, if underwhelming overall.

It's your standard bad guy vs. good bad guy western. Clint Cooper returns to the town that ran him off and reluctantly agrees to stay and fight the coming horde of thieves. Though this is a very predictable plot, it doesn't feature the huge leaps that are common in some westerns from the era.

Watching this movie 41 years after it's release and judging it by today's standards isn't really fair. It is from a simpler time in history and as a result seems naive to us.

Today you would never see scenes that are supposed to occur at night happening in obvious sunlight. The melo-drama is passe. Everyone knows that gunshots are messy, except in old westerns. Having said all of that, fans of the genre and Audie Murphey will no doubt enjoy this film.

I also enjoyed watching James Best before his Dukes of Hazard days. While I am not one who thinks that his performances as Sheriff of Hazard County are un-noteworthy, this role really opened my eyes to his versatility and talent as an actor.